What happens when a chief minister is arrested by the police that is supposed to be working under him? Right now it is not thanks to converting the state into a Union Territory. But surely this is going a bit too when no crime was committed? Let us take a look.
On July 13, 2025, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Chief Minister Omar Abdullah was reportedly prevented from visiting the Naqshband Sahib Martyrs’ Graveyard in Srinagar to pay homage to the 22 civilians killed in 1931 during protests against the Dogra regime. Reports indicate that he was manhandled by security personnel and placed under house arrest, alongside other political leaders, to prevent commemorative activities on Martyrs’ Day. This incident, described as a “blatantly undemocratic move” by Abdullah and condemned by opposition parties, raises significant questions about the authority behind the orders, the constitutional propriety of such actions, historical precedents, and the broader implications for J&K’s political landscape and India’s federal structure.
Who Ordered and Executed the Actions?
The Srinagar district administration denied permission for any events at the Martyrs’ Graveyard on July 13, 2025. The Srinagar Police issued a public advisory on July 12, 2025, stating that “the District Administration Srinagar has denied permission to all applicants intending to proceed towards Khawaja Bazar, Nowhatta on 13th July 2025,” warning of strict legal action for violations. This indicates that the decision was made under the LG’s oversight.
The LG’s authority stems from the 2019 Act, which reorganised J&K into a Union Territory. This Act grants the LG extensive control over matters such as police, public order, and administrative decisions, often superseding the elected government’s autonomy. The Left parties and other critics have accused the LG of acting on behalf of the Central government, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), to enforce restrictive measures. The CPI(M) Polit Bureau alleged that the Central government was attempting to “enforce its own diktats” by undermining the elected state government.
Security personnel erected barricades across Srinagar, blocked major bridges, and sealed roads leading to the Martyrs’ Graveyard. Police personnel were stationed outside the residences of political leaders. In Abdullah’s case, a police officer allegedly attempted to physically prevent him from scaling the graveyard’s wall to offer prayers, resulting in what has been described as “manhandling.” This physical altercation, combined with the house arrests of multiple leaders, including NC’s Farooq Abdullah, PDP’s Mehbooba Mufti, and CPI(M)’s Yusuf Tarigami, was executed systematically to prevent any public commemoration of Martyrs’ Day.
Constitutional Propriety of Treating a Chief Minister in This Manner
The Indian Constitution establishes a federal structure where elected state governments, led by Chief Ministers, are vested with significant authority under the Seventh Schedule’s State List, particularly in matters like public order and police in full-fledged states. However, J&K’s status as a Union Territory under the 2019 Act complicates this framework. Section 73 of the Act grants the LG overriding powers, including control over law and order, which curtails the elected government’s autonomy. This creates a “hybrid system” where the Chief Minister’s authority is subordinate to the LG’s, a structure that critics argue undermines democratic principles.
The alleged assault and house arrest of a sitting Chief Minister raise serious constitutional concerns, particularly under Articles 19, 21, and 356 of the Constitution:
Article 19(1)(a) and (b) guarantees freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably. Preventing the Chief Minister and other leaders from commemorating Martyrs’ Day, a historically significant event, violates these rights, especially since the commemoration was intended to be peaceful.
Article 21 grants the right to life and personal liberty. It was violated in the reported manhandling and house arrest without formal orders or judicial oversight. The Supreme Court, in cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), has emphasised that any restriction on personal liberty must follow due process and be reasonable, which appears absent in this case.
Article 356 facilitates President’s Rule, which was revoked in J&K in October 2024, allowing an elected government to assume power. But the LG’s actions suggest a de facto central control that mimics emergency provisions, raising questions about the erosion of federalism.
Treating a Chief Minister in this manner—through physical restraint and confinement—undermines the dignity of an elected office and the democratic mandate. The Constitution envisions the Chief Minister as the head of the state’s elected government, accountable to the people through the legislative assembly. Subjecting such an official to manhandling and house arrest, especially without transparent legal justification, appears to contravene the principles of democratic governance and federalism enshrined in the Constitution.
Precedents
There is no direct precedent in India for a sitting Chief Minister being physically manhandled and placed under house arrest by state or central forces on the orders of a non-elected authority like an LG. However, related instances provide context:
Arvind Kejriwal’s Arrest (2024): The arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Enforcement Directorate in March 2024 in connection with the Delhi liquor scam marked the first instance of a sitting Chief Minister being arrested. However, this was under judicially reviewable charges of money laundering, with the Supreme Court granting interim bail, citing violations of the right to liberty. Unlike Kejriwal’s case, the J&K incident lacks any reported criminal charges against Abdullah, making it a more direct assault on democratic norms.
Post-Article 370 Detentions (2019): Following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, several J&K leaders, including former Chief Ministers Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah, and Mehbooba Mufti, were detained or placed under house arrest under the Public Safety Act (PSA). These detentions were justified by the Central government on security grounds but lacked specific charges. The Supreme Court, in Farooq Abdullah v. Union of India (2020), did not directly intervene, highlighting judicial reluctance to challenge executive actions in J&K on security matters.
Historical House Arrests: House arrests of political leaders in J&K have been a recurring tactic, particularly since 2019, to suppress dissent or public gatherings. The 2024 detentions of lawyers and journalists under the PSA further illustrate a pattern of restricting political activity, though none involved a sitting Chief Minister being physically restrained.
The lack of a direct precedent for manhandling a Chief Minister underscores the gravity of the July 13, 2025, incident. It sets a dangerous precedent for central overreach into state governance, particularly in Union Territories, where elected governments have limited powers.
Political Consequences
Erosion of Democratic Trust: The incident has deepened mistrust between the people of J&K and the Central government. Leaders like Mehbooba Mufti have argued that accepting Kashmiri martyrs as national heroes could bridge the “dil ki doori” (distance of hearts), but actions like these reinforce perceptions of authoritarianism.
Polarisation and Political Backlash: The BJP’s opposition to Martyrs’ Day, coupled with their promotion of Maharaja Hari Singh’s birth anniversary as a holiday, has intensified political divisions. The NC and PDP’s unified condemnation, alongside Left parties and figures like Mamata Banerjee, signals a broader opposition coalition against perceived central overreach.
Weakening of Elected Governance: The LG’s ability to override the elected government undermines the legitimacy of the October 2024 assembly elections, which restored limited statehood. If the Chief Minister can be restrained without accountability, it signals that elected representatives have little real power, potentially discouraging political participation.
Constitutional Implications
Threat to Federalism: The incident highlights the fragility of federalism in Union Territories. The 2019 Act’s concentration of power in the LG’s hands creates a quasi-presidential system, where elected governments are subordinate. This contradicts the Supreme Court’s observations in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), which emphasised federalism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
The incident may prompt legal challenges, as seen in the 2019 detentions. Petitions to the Supreme Court could test the constitutionality of the LG’s powers under the 2019 Act, particularly if they infringe on fundamental rights or elected governance.
Social and Cultural Implications
Martyrs’ Day commemorates a pivotal moment in J&K’s struggle against autocratic rule. Preventing its observance risks erasing a shared historical narrative. This could deepen cultural alienation.
The BJP’s emphasis on Maharaja Hari Singh’s legacy over the 1931 martyrs, who were predominantly Muslim, has been criticized as an attempt to impose a majoritarian historical narrative. This worsens communal tensions and undermines J&K’s pluralistic identity.
Analytical Opinion
The alleged assault and house arrest of Omar Abdullah represent a troubling escalation in the Central government’s approach to J&K. While the LG’s authority under the 2019 Act provides a legal basis for administrative control, the use of force against a sitting Chief Minister and the blanket restriction on political activity lack constitutional justification. The incident reflects a broader pattern of centralisation since the abrogation of Article 370, where security concerns are used to justify measures that undermine democratic norms.
From a constitutional perspective, the incident is indefensible. The Supreme Court’s rulings in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) emphasise that restrictions on fundamental rights must be proportionate, transparent, and subject to judicial review. The lack of public orders or specific charges against Abdullah suggests an arbitrary exercise of power, contravening Articles 19 and 21. Moreover, the physical manhandling of an elected official sets a dangerous precedent, signalling that no democratic institution in J&K is immune to central intervention.
Politically, the incident risks further destabilising J&K. The elected government, already constrained by the LG’s powers, faces a crisis of legitimacy. Abdullah’s restraint in confronting the Centre prior to this incident earned him criticism for being too conciliatory, but this event may force a more confrontational stance, potentially galvanising opposition to the BJP’s policies. The BJP’s narrative, which frames the 1931 martyrs as divisive figures, ignores their role in resisting colonial-era oppression, alienating even moderate Kashmiri voices.
Without judicial or legislative intervention to restore J&K’s statehood and limit the LG’s powers, such incidents could become normalised, eroding India’s federal framework. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to clarify the balance of power in Union Territories, ensuring that elected governments are not reduced to ceremonial roles.
Conclusion
The alleged assault and house arrest of Omar Abdullah on July 13, 2025, ordered by the LG’s administration and executed by J&K Police and central forces, represent a low point in J&K’s democratic journey. Constitutionally, such actions lack legitimacy without transparent justification and due process. While precedents like the 2019 detentions exist, the targeting of a sitting Chief Minister is unprecedented and sets a dangerous example. The consequences—political alienation, weakened federalism, and cultural suppression—threaten J&K’s stability and India’s democratic fabric. Urgent judicial and political action is needed to restore trust and uphold constitutional principles.
Omar Abdullah, Martyrs Day 2025, Jammu and Kashmir politics, LG Manoj Sinha, Omar Abdullah house arrest, J&K Chief Minister, Article 370, Omar Abdullah manhandled, Farooq Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti, Indian Constitution, federalism in India, BJP Kashmir policy, J&K Union Territory, political crackdown in Kashmir, Kashmir autonomy, Martyrs Graveyard Srinagar, democratic rights India, Voice of Sanity, Kashmir July 13, 1931 martyrs, Kashmir protest, Omar Abdullah struggle, J&K police action, Indian democracy under threat, Union Territory vs State rights, political dissent India, central overreach Kashmir, constitutional crisis India, Omar Abdullah vlog, Voice of Sanity YouTube, Kashmir news 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment